DARRELL WAYNE MITCHELL, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the motion for post-conviction relief was facially insufficient and should be dismissed without addressing the merits.
[1] A motion for post-conviction relief is facially insufficient if it fails to allege the court that rendered the judgment and sentence, whether an appeal was taken and its…
[2] A motion for post-conviction relief alleging an involuntary plea is untimely if filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence became final.
Previewing 2 of 3 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceDefendant pled guilty to attempted armed robbery and attempted first-degree murder and was sentenced. He later filed a motion for post-conviction reli…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Facial Insufficiency Of Motion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Darrell Wayne Mitchell has appealed from an order of the trial court denying his motion for post-conviction relief, pursuant to Fla. R.Crim.P. 3.850. We remand to the trial court with directions to dismiss the motion as facially insufficient.
On May 12, 1982, Mitchell (then 17) pled guilty to attempted armed robbery and attempted first-degree murder, in return for concurrent 15-and 75-year sentences, respectively. Mitchell was adjudicated guilty and sentenced in accordance with the plea on June 11,1982. No appeal was taken. Mitchell filed the instant motion on November 1, 1993, alleging that his plea was involuntary because he was not told that he had the right to be sentenced as a youthful offender. In an addendum to the motion, Mitchell alleged that his sentence was illegal, in that the trial court failed to set forth in writing its determination of the suitability of adult sanctions with reference to the criteria in section 39.-lll(6)(c), Florida Statutes (1981).
The trial court denied the motion. It did not address Mitchell’s allegation as to the suitability of adult sanctions, but ruled that the trial court properly exercised its discretion to decline to classify Mitchell as a youthful offender. Although the timeliness of the motion was not addressed by the trial court, we note that it is untimely as to the allegation of an involuntary plea, in that it was filed more than two years after the judgment and sentence became final on June 11, 1982. Further, however, the motion is facially insufficient in that it fails to allege, as required: 1) the court which rendered the judgment and sentence; 2) whether there was an appeal from the judgment or sentence and its disposition; and 3) whether a previous post-conviction motion was filed and, if so, how many. See Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850(c).
The motion is therefore facially insufficient, and should not have been addressed on its merits. We remand with directions that the motion herein appealed be dismissed as facially insufficient.
BARFIELD and DAVIS, JJ., and WENTWORTH, Senior Judge, concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Groves v. State, 668 So. 2d 1089 (Fla. 1st DCA 1996)…(although trial court’s stated reason for denial of Rule 3.850 was erroneous, summary denial was affirmed, without prejudice for the appellant to file an amended motion below complying with the contents requirements of the rule); Mitchell v. State, 638 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994); Scott v. State, 364 So. 2d 67 (Fla. 4th DCA 1978). In the event the lower tribunal elects to deny any revised motion including substantially similar allegations of “affirmative misrepresentations” by trial counsel, the trial c…
-
Burchfield v. State, 907 So. 2d 614 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005)…cially insufficient because the prisoner “[did] not state [*616] whether there was a direct appeal from the judgment and sentence,” and failed to “specify whether any previous motions for post-conviction relief [had] been filed”); Mitchell v. State, 638 So. 2d 606 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994) (holding that trial court should have “dismissed as facially insufficient” rule 3.850 motion that failed to allege “1) the court which rendered the judgment and sentence; 2) whether there was an appeal from the judgment or senten…